pcb_component_clearance_check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Marks violating pairs' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether this mutates board markers, only returns a report, or has other side effects. The lack of output or side-effect details is a significant transparency gap for a check-like tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose and behavior. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the agent receives after invocation—such as a list of violations, a report, or a board marker update. It also does not clarify whether this is read-only or has persistent effects, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter minClearance is fully documented in the schema with units (mil) and default value (20). The description adds the concept of a threshold but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking minimum clearances across all component pairs and marking violating pairs below the threshold. It includes a specific verb (check/mark), a specific resource (all component pairs), and the outcome (identified violations), which distinguishes it from broader or unrelated sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the description—use this when you need to verify component-pair clearance against a threshold. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over pcb_run_drc or other design rule checks, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.